S!c0-Y\5? 

H3Z.o( 

DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SOME  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH 
REMAINS  FROM  FLORIDA  OF  PROBABLY 
PLEISTOCENE  AGE 


fHt  IIBBARY 
Of  IHE 

. UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLI80IS 

BY 


OLIVER  P.  HAY 


Associate  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington 


No.  2291. — From  the  Proceedings  of  the  United  States  National  Museum, 
Vol.  56,  pages  103-112,  with  Plates  26-28 


% 

is, 

ORL . 


Washington 

Government  Printing  Office 
1919 


DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SOME  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH 
REMAINS  FROM  FLORIDA  OF  PROBABLY 
PLEISTOCENE  AGE 


BY 

OLIVER  P.  HAY 


Associate  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington 


No.  2291. — From  the  Proceedings  of  the  United  States  National  Museum, 
Vol.  56,  pages  103-112,  with  Plates  26-28 


Washington 

Government  Printing  Office 

1919 


7 


DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SOME  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH  REMAINS 
FROM  FLORIDA  OF  PROBABLY  PLEISTOCENE  AGE. 


Oliver  P.  Hay. 

Associate  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington. 


There  are  few  of  our  States  which  give  promise  of  furnishing  more 
important  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  the  vertebrate  animals 
of  the  Pleistocene  than  Florida.  Already  the  list  of  species  has  be- 
come a long  one  and  additions  are  constantly  being  made  to  it. 
Materials  belonging  to  five  species  are  described  below.  Two  of 
these  are  believed  to  be  hitherto  unnamed. 

ELEPHAS  IMPERATOR  Leidy. 

Plate  26,  fig.  1. 

In  18891  Leidy  described  and  figured  a left  ramus  of  the  lower  jaw 
of  an  elephant  which  had  been  found  by  Mr.  J.  F.  LeBaron,  some- 
where along  Peace  Creek,  probably  not  far  from  Arcadia,  and  which 
Leidy  identified  as  belonging  to  Elephas  columbi.  Leidy’s  figure 
presents  a view  of  the  worn  surface  of  the  tooth,  which  he  recognized 
as  being  the  hindermost  molar.  He  stated  that  there  were  twelve 
ridges  present  and  that  these  appeared  to  be  the  complete  number 
entering  into  the  constitution  of  the  tooth.  Eight  of  these  were 
said  to  occupy  a space  of  6.4  inches.  Inasmuch  as  the  tooth  was 
buried  in  the  bone  nearly  to  its  summit,  the  thickness  of  the  plates 
was  taken  on  the  grinding  surface. 

This  jaw  is  in  the  United  States  National  Museum,  and  has  the 

catalogue  number  183.  Recently  the  writer  obtained  permission  to 

expose  the  lingual  face  of  the  tooth,  and  the  result  is  shown  on  plate 

26  (fig.  1).  Near  their  bases  the  space  occupied  by  four  plates  is 

about  95  mm.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  jaw  belonged  to  an 

individual  of  Elephas  imperator.  The  normal  number  of  plates  in 

the  last  tooth  of  E.  columbi  is  about  24.  Had  there  ever  been  so 

♦ 

many  plates  present  the  tooth  would  have  had  an  enormous  length. 
With  18  plates  it  was  sufficiently  large.  Certainly  some  plates, 
about  six,  had  been  lost  through  usage. 

i Trans.  Wagner  Free  Inst.  Sci.,  vol.  2,  p.  23,  pi.  8,  fig.  2. 

Proceedings  U.  S.  National  Museum,  Vol.  56— No.  2291. 

103 


*49913 


104 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM. 


vol.  56. 


TKINOBADISTES,  new  genus. 

A new  genus  of  ground  sloths,  most  closely  related  to  Gnathopsis 
Leidy  Type,  T,  segnis,  a new  species  described  below.  Based  on  an 
astragalus,  in  the  front  half  of  the  upper  surface  of  which  there  is  a 
deep  ligamentous  fossa  opening  forward;  the  lower  face  also  crossed 
from  front  to  rear  by  a ligamentous  fossa. 

THINOBADISTES  SEGNIS,  new  species. 

Plate  27,  figs.  1,  2. 

Type  specimen. — An  astragalus,  No.  3335,  of  the  U.  S.  National 
Museum. 

Type  locality. — Williston,  Florida. 

Type  formation. — Pleistocene. 

Characters. — Those  of  the  genus. 

In  the  United  States  National  Museum  there  is  a left  astragalus  of 
a large  ground  sloth  which  is  recorded  as  having  been  collected  by 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey  in  1887,  in  Levy  county, 
Florida.  The  catalogue  number  is  3335,  and  the  bone  is  recorded  as 
Mylodon  harlani.  It  seems  probable  that  the  collector  of  the  speci- 
men was  Mr.  J.  B.  Hatcher;  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  it  was  found 
at  “Mixon’s  bone  bed,”  near  Williston,  where  many  other  fossils 
have  been  secured. 

It  appears  that  this  bone  had  been  studied  by  Doctor  Leidy,  for 
there  is  writing  on  it  in  his  chirography ; but  he  has  not  indicated  on 
it  any  generic  or  specific  name. 

Supposing  that  the  bone  belonged  to  Mylodon  harlani , the  astraga- 
lus of  which  appears  to  be  known  only  from  Harlan’s  brief  descrip- 
tion and  poor  figure,1  the  writer  first  compared  it  with  that  of  Mylodon 
robustus,  as  described  and  figured  by  Richard  Owen.2  It  soon  be- 
came evident  that  the  Florida  bone  was  quite  different  from  the 
corresponding  one  of  the  South  American  species.  On  plate  27, 
figures  1,2,  are  presented  two  views  of  the  bone  from  Florida.  From 
figure  1 it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  on  the  upper  face  a deep  fossa 
extending  from  the  front  of  the  bone  to  its  center.  A large  part  of 
this  fossa  is  occupied  by  a rough  surface  for  ligamentous  attachment, 
the  apex  of  which  is  midway  between  the  front  end  of  the  bone  and 
the  hinder  border  of  the  articulation  for  the  tioia.  In  all  directions 
away  from  the  fossa  just  mentioned  the  surface  for  articulation  with 
the  tibia  is  strongly  convex.  In  Mylodon  robustus  the  corresponding 
fossa  is  evidently  much  shorter  and  shallower,  and  the  surface  for 
the  tibia  is  much  flatter  and  apparently  even  concave  posteriorly. 
The  greatest  differences  are  seen,  however,  on  the  lower  surface  of 

1 Amer.  Journ.  Sci„  vol.  44, 1843,  p.  78,  pi.  1,  fig.  16. 

2 Descr.  skel.  Mylodon  robustus,  1842,  pp.  117, 131,  pis.  21-23. 


*0.  2291.  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH  REMAINS  FROM  FLORIDA— HAY.  105 

the  bone.  Owen  writes1  that  the  anterior  and  inferior  surface  of  the 
astragalus  of  Mylodon  robustus  is  occupied  by  one  extensive  elongated 
articular  surface  adapted  to  the  calcaneum,  cuboides,  and  navicu- 
lare,  and  his  figure  shows  that  this  is  true.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
the  bone  from  Florida,  this  surface  is  completely  divided  by  a deep 
rough  furrow  for  ligaments.  It  will  be  noted,  too,  that  the  out- 
lines of  the  two  bones  as  seen  from  below  are  very  different. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  the  astragalus  here  described. is  that  of 
Megalonyx;  but  this  bone  was  described  by  Leidy,2  and  only  a glance 
at  Leidy’s  figures  is  needed  to  convince  one  that  the  Florida  bone 
can  not  belong  to  that  genus. 

Owen3  described  and  figured  an  astragalus  which  had  been  brought 
from  South  America  and  which  he  thought  belonged  possibly  to 
Megalonyx.  This  was  afterwards  made  by  Leidy4  the  type  of  a new 
genus  and  species,  Gnathopsis  oweni.  When  the  Florida  bone  is 
compared  with  Owen’s  figures  here  reproduced  (pi.  27,  figs.  3,  4) 
there  are  to  be  seen  close  resemblances.  It  might  not  be  far  out  of 
the  way  to  refer  the  astragalus  from  Florida  to  a second  species  of 
Gnathopsis,  but  a careful  examination  shows  differences  that  seem 
to  indicate  a distinct  but  closely  related  genus.  On  the  upper 
surface  of  the  bone  figured  by  Owen  there  was  certainly  no  such 
deep  fossa  for  a process  of  the  tibia  and  for  a ligament  as  is  seen  in 
the  Florida  bone.  Nor  was  the  surface  for  the  tibia  as  convex  as 
it  was  in  the  bone  here  described.  Again,  as  seen  from  below,  there 
was  in  the  astragalus  of  Gnathopsis  a deep  and  wide  notch  in  the 
anterior  border  at  the  end  of  the  ligamentous  groove,  as  if  this  and 
the  upper  one  joined  across  the  border  of  the  bone.  In  the  Florida 
bone  the  anterior  surface  for  articulation  with  the  calcaneum  extends 
nearly  to  the  inner  border  of  the  bone;  in  Gnathopsis  oweni  it  is 
much  shorter.  Believing  that  such  differences  in  as  characteristic 
a bone  as  the  astragalus  is  among  the  ground  sloths,  indicate  other 
important  differences  in  the  skeleton,  the  name  Thinobadistes  is 
proposed  for  the  genus,  the  species  to  be  known  as  Thinobadistes 
segnis.  (Derivations,  dis  sand;  fiadLarrjs,  a walker;  segnis  sluggish.) 

The  following  measurements  in  millimeters  have  been  made  on 


the  astragalus  here  described: 

Extreme  length  of  astragalus 108 

Width  from  summit  of  tuberosity  for  tibia  to  border  between  the 

fibular  and  the  calcaneal  surfaces 97 

Length  of  surface  for  tibia 76 

Width  of  surface  for  tibia 70 

Height  and  length  of  surface  for  fibula 38 

Length  of  posterior  articular  surface  for  calcaneum 69 

Width  of  posterior  articular  surface  for  calcaneum 38 


1 Descr.  skel.  Mylodon  robustus,  p.  118. 

1 Smiths.  Contrib.  Knowl.,  vol.  7,  art.  5,  p.  40,  pi.  12.  figs.  7-10. 

3 Descr. skel.  Mylodon  robustus,  p.  132,  pi.  23,  figs.  3,  4. 

4 Smiths.  Contrib.  Knowl.,  vol.7,p.  41. 


106 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM. 


vol.  56. 


The  posterior  surface  for  the  calcaneum  is  concave  along  its  greater 
diameter;  slightly  convex  along  the  shorter.  The  surface  for  the 
fibula  is  nearly  plane  in  its  upper  part,  but  convex  from  front  to  rear 
in  its  lower  half.  The  articular  surface  for  the  navicular  is  concave, 
but  not  deeply  so.  The  surface  for  the  cuboid  is  convex. 

TRUCIFELIS  FLORIDANUS  (Leidy). 

Plate  28,  figs.  1-3. 

In  1889 1 Leidy  described  a skull  of  a saber-tooth  tiger  to  which 
he  gave  the  name  Machairodus  jloridanus.  This  had  been  secured 
by  Mr.  Joseph  Willcox,  in  a limestone  quarry  at  Ocala,  Florida. 
From  the  same  quarry  had  been  obtained  other  remains  which  are 
referred  to  Equus  leidyi,  Bison,  sp.  indet.,  Odocoileus  sp.  indet.,  Dasy- 
pus  sp.  indet.,  Sylvilagus  sp.  indet.,  Procamelus  minor , and  Elephas 
columbi.2  All  of  these  indicate  that  the  deposits  belong  to  the 
Pleistocene. 

From  the  skull  described  by  Leidy  all  the  teeth  were  missing;  but 
there  were  present  the  alveoli  for  the  upper  incisors,  the  great 
canine,  the  third  premolar,  and  the  carnassial.  This  skull  was 
figured  in  a later  paper.3 

In  the  Eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Florida  Geological  Survey, 
on  plate  29,  figure  8,  Dr.  E.  H.  Sellards  figured  an  upper  carnassial 
premolar  which  had  been  found  at  Yero,  Florida,  in  the  stratum 
known  in  the  literature  of  that  locality  as  No.  2.  This  he  referred 
(p.  152)  to  Smilodon.  Recently,  through  the  kindness  of  Doctor 
Sellards,  the  writer  has  been  permitted  to  examine  the  tooth  in 
question.  By  comparing  the  figure  of  this  tooth  here  presented 
(pi.  28,  figs.  1,  2)  with  that  of  Leidy’s  Trucifelis  fatalis*  it  will  be 
seen  that  there  is  between  them  a close  resemblance.  It  will  be 
necessary  first  of  ail  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  Vero  tooth 
belongs  to  T.  faialis.  The  following  measurements  enable  us  to 
make  comparisons,  those  of  T.  fatalis  being  computed  from  Leidy’s 
description5.  In  the  second  column  under  each  tooth  is  given  the 
ratio  of  each  dimension  to  the  length  of  the  tooth. 


Dimensions  of  upper  carnassials. 


Trucif (Us  fatalis 
type. 

Vero  tooth. 

1 

2 

1 

2 

Length  of  crown 

32.8 

100 

40 

100 

Width  at  inner  buttress 

15. 6 

41 

17 

42.5 

Height  of  principal  cusp 

18.7 

57 

26 

65 

Height  of  anterior  lobe 

14.  6 

44.5 

19 

47.5 

Height  of  front  of  rear  lobe 

13.5 

41 

19 

47.5 

1 Proc.  Acad.  Nat.  Sci.  Phila.,  p.  29. 

2 Sellards,  8th  Ann.  Rep.  Fla.  Geol.  Surv..  p.  103. 

3 Trans.  Wagner  Free  Inst.  Sci.,  vol.  2,  pi.  3,  fig.  1. 

* Ext.  Mamra.  Fauna  Dak.,  Neb.,  pi.  28,  figs.  10, 11. 
3 Idem,  p.  367. 


no.  2291.  mammalia n and  fish  remains  from  Florida— hay.  107 


It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  Vero  tooth  was  probably  that  of  a 
larger  species  than  T.  fatalis  and  that  the  crown  is  everywhere  higher 
in  proportion  to  its  length.  As  may  be  seen  from  comparing  the 
figures  of  the  two  teeth,  the  width  of  the  principal  cusp  at  its  base  is 
one-half  of  its  height,  while  that  of  T.  fatalis  is  relatively  consider- 
ably wider.  The  two  teeth  agree  in  having  the  protocone  absent 
and  in  having  the  anterior  lobe  divided  into  two  parts.  It  appears 
certain  that  the  Vero  tooth  does  not  belong  to  T.  fatalis.  The  latter 
was  found  at  Sour  Lake,  in  Hardin  County,  Texas. 

Through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  John  G.  Rothermel,  director  of  the 
Wagner  Free  Institute,  the  writer  has  been  able  to  examine  the 
upper  jaw  of  Leidy’s  type  of  Machairodus  floridanus.  The  carnas- 
sial  possessed  in  front  two  roots,  of  which  the  inner  was  somewhat 
reduced  in  size  and  pushed  backward,  as  in  the  Vero  tooth,  to  nearly 
opposite  the  interval  between  the  anterior  outer  root  and  the  great 
hinder  root.  It  is  quite  certain  that  the  anterior  lobe  of  the  tooth 
was  much  larger  than  it  is  in  the  lion  and  the  tiger.  The  alveolus 
has  a length  of  37  mm. ; that  part  for  the  hinder  root  is  24  mm.  long. 
The  tooth  was  therefore  only  slightly  larger  than  the  Vero  tooth; 
and  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  the  latter  can  not  be  with 
much  certainty  referred  to  Leidy’s  species. 

In  the  deposit  at  Vero  which  furnished  the  carnassial  Doctor  Sellards 
found  a part  of  a great  canine  tooth  which  belonged  to  some  one  of 
the  Machairodontinae.  The  fragment  (pi.  28,  fig.  3)  is  67  mm.  long. 
Probably  nearly  25  mm.  of  the  distal  extemity  is  gone.  The  upper 
end  does  not  reach  the  base  of  the  crown.  In  the  Ocala  skull  the 
socket  for  the  canine  measures  40  mm.  in  length  fore  and  aft  and  its 
width  is  20  mm.  At  its  upper  end  the  fragment  from  Vero  has  a 
width  for  and  aft  of  30  mm.  and  a thickness  of  13  mm.  If  the  front- 
and  rear  borders  of  this  tooth  are  continued  until  the  distance  between 
them  is  40  mm.  and  the  distal  extemity  is  restored,  a tooth  is  indi- 
cated whose  crown  was  about  110  mm.  long.  Both  borders  are  acute,, 
more  especially  the  hinder  one,  which  is  knife-like.  The  anterior 
edge  is  smooth,  but  the  hinder  one  is  obsoletely  crenulated.  The 
tooth  is  quite  different  from  that  of  Barnum  Brown’s  Smilodontopsis 
conardi.1  In  the  latter  the  base  of  the  fragment  has  the  same  fore  and 
aft  diameter  as  does  the  Vero  tooth.  At  a distance  of  55  mm.  from 
this,  toward  the  tip,  the  fore  and  aft  diameter  is  19  mm.;  in  the  Vera 
specimen,  only  16  mm.  In  Smilodontopsis  conardi  both  edges  are 
crenulated.  In  Cope’s  Smilodon  gracilis  2 the  powerful  canine  main- 
tains well  its  breadth  as  the  tip  is  approached;  and  both  edges  are 
free  from  denticles  (Cope).  For  comparison  there  is  figured  here 
(pi.  28,  fig.  4)  a right  canine  tooth  evidently  belonging  to  Dinobastis 


1 Mem.  Amer.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol.  9,  p.  190,  pi.  19. 

2 Joum.  Acad.  Nat.  Sci.  Phila.,  vol.  11,  pi.  20,  fig.  1. 


108 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM. 


vol.  56. 


serus  Cope.  It  was  found  in  a cave  in  the  northern  part  of  Bexar 
County,  Texas.  The  tooth  belongs  to  the  Scientific  Society  of  San 
Antonio.  It  was  a far  smaller  tooth  than  that  of  figure  3. 

From  the  close  resemblance  existing  between  the  carnassial  found 
at  Vero  and  here  referred  to  Leidy’s  Machairodus  floridanus  and  that 
of  Trucifelis  fatalis  found  at  Natchez,  it  is  certain  that  both  belong 
to  the  same  genus.  For  this  genus  the  writer  accepts  at  present  the 
name  Trucifelis.  We  shall  have,  therefore,  the  two  species,  Truci- 
felis atrox  and  T.  floridanus. 

FELIS  VERONIS,  new  species. 

Plate  28,  figs.  5-7. 

When  the  author  was  at  Vero,  in  October,  1917,  he  found  along  the 
drainage  canal,  a short  distance  above  the  railroad  bridge,  in  the  bed 
of  sand  known  as  No.  2,  an  upper  left  fourth  premolar  of  a large  tiger- 
like animal.  Views  of  this  tooth  are  here  presented  (pi.  28,  figs. 
5-7).  On  comparing  it  with  the  corresponding  teeth  of  the  tiger 
and  of  the  jaguar  ( F . paraguensis , No.  4128  U.  S.  Nat.  Mus.),  and 
with  those  of  the  machairodonts,  it  can  not  be  doubted  that  its  pos- 
sessor belonged  to  a species  of  Felis.  In  order  to  facilitate  comparison 
the  following  measurements  are  presented,  being  those  of  the  speci- 
men in  question,  the  same  tooth  of  Felis  tigris,  and  of  the  large  South 
American  jaguar,  Felis  paraguensis  Hollister. 


Measurements  of  carnassials  of  Felis. 


Felis  from 
Vero. 

Felis  tigris 
218321. 

Felis  para - 
guensis 
type. 

Length  of  the  crown 

33.0 

32.5 

28.8 

Width  of  crown  at  protocone 

17.8 

15.5 

15.2 

Width  of  crown  between  the  main  and  the  hinder  cusps 

12.5 

10.0 

10.2 

Height  of  anterior  lobe 

10.0 

11.0 

11.0 

Height  of  main  cusp 

16.0 

15.0 

16.0 

Height  of  rear  hinder  lobe 

7.0 

6.0 

6.0 

Width  of  the  main  cusp 

11.5 

11.0 

10.6 

Various  differences  between  the  fossil  tooth  and  that  of  the  tiger 
appear  other  than  those  shown  in  the  table  of  measurements.  The 
protocone  of  the  Vero  tooth  is  considerably  less  reduced  than  in  the 
tiger,  its  height  and  anteroposterior  diameter  being  greater  by  one- 
third.  Immediately  behind  the  protocone  the  width  of  the  tooth 
is  reduced  more  suddenly  than  in  the  tiger;  the  preanterior  tubercle 
is  much  more  prominent  than  that  in  the  tiger;  and  the  buttress 
which  descends  from  the  principal  cone  to  the  protocone  is  sharp, 
instead  of  rounded.  In  the  jaguar  the  preanterior  tubercle  is  missing 
and  the  protocone  is  relatively  more  reduced  than  in  the  fossil. 
The  height  of  the  main  cusp  is  relatively  greater  than  in  either  the 


NO.  2291.  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH  REMAINS  FROM  FLORIDA— HAY.  109 


recent  tiger  or  the  fossil  one.  Naturally,  the  fossil  is  very  distinct 
from  the  jaguar  because  of  its  greater  size. 

From  Natchez,  Mississippi,  Leidy  described  Fells  air  ox 1 which  was 
based  on  a lower  jaw  with  teeth.  Inasmuch  as  the  lower  carnassial  is 
31.2  mm.  long,  while  that  of  the  existing  tiger  above-mentioned  is 
only  23  mm.,  it  is  evident  that  F.  atrox  had  upper  carnassials  which 
were  about  44  mm.  long.  It  was  therefore  a much  larger  animal 
than  the  Yero  cat.  Felis  augustus,2  besides  belonging  to  the  Arikaree 
of  the  Tertiary,  differs  in  various  ways  from  the  Vero  specimen. 
Felis  Jiillianus  Cope  belongs  to  the  Blanco  Pliocene  and  is  based  on 
a canine  tooth  and  some  foot  bones;  so  that  it  can  not  be  compared 
with  the  animal  here  described.  Felis  imperialis,  of  the  Pleistocene 
of  California,  had  a second  molar  about  25.5  mm.  long  and  was, 
therefore,  a larger  animal  than  that  from  Vero.  According  to  Cope3 
the  upper  carnassial  of  Felis  inexpectata  has  a length  of  24  mm.,  being 
thus  considerably  smaller  than  that  of  the  Vero  animal. 

Inasmuch  as  this  large  felid  found  at  Vero  appears  to  have  been 
hitherto  unknown,  it  is  proposed  to  introduce  it  under  the  name 
Felis  veronis. 

TRICHECHUS  ANTIQUUS  Leidy? 

Plate  26,  figs.  2,  3. 

In  the  collection  of  the  National  Museum  is  a part  of  the  lower 
jaw  of  a manatee  (Cat.  No.  2522)  which  is  labeled  as  having  been 
found  with  the  other  fossils  of  the  Alachua  clays,  in  Levy  County. 
However,  the  writer  finds  no  reference  to  this  genus  in  any  of  the  lists 
of  materials  collected  in  the  Alachua  clays;  the  fossil  has  an  appear- 
ance different  from  most  of  the  other  fossils  of  those  clays;  and  there 
is  attached  to  it  an  oyster  shell,  showing  that  it  had  lain  in  salt 
water.  Doctor  Sellards  informs  the  writer  that  he  has  never  seen 
any  marine  fossils  that  have  been  found  in  the  Alachua  clays.  It  is 
hence  probable  that  the  bone  was  found  somewhere  else  in  Florida. 
Leidy  reported  4 fragments  of  ribs  of  supposed  Trichechus  antiguus 
from  Peace  creek,  and  Sellards 5 included  T.  manatus  among  the  fossils 
found  in  Withlacoochee  river.  No  mention  is  found  of  the  discovery 
of  a lower  jaw  at  any  place. 

The  jaw  in  question  appears  to  be  well  fossilized  and  it  is  heavy; 
so  that  it  evidently  belongs  to  either  the  Pleistocene  or  to  some 
late  Tertiary  deposit. 

The  jaw  lacks  both  ascending  rami  and  all  of  the  teeth.  It  evi- 
dently belonged  to  a species  of  Trichechus , but  not  to  T.  manatus. 
The  individual  possessing  it  appears  to  have  had  a size  somewhat 
less  than  that  of  a manatee  whose  basilar  length  is  356  mm.  The 


1 Trans.  Amer.  Philos.  Soc.,  vol.  10,  1853,  p.  319,  pi.  34. 
1 Leidy,  Ext.  Vert.  Fauna,  etc.,  pi.  7. 

8 Journ.  Acad.  Nat.  Sci.  Phila.,  vol.  11,  p.  248. 


« Trans.  Wagner  Inst.,  vol.  2,  p.  27. 

5 8th  Ann.  Rep.  Fla.  Geol.  Surv.,  p.  104. 


110 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM. 


VOL.  56. 


distance  from  the  front  of  the  symphysis  to  the  rise  of  the  ascending 
ramus  was  close  to  180  mm;  in  the  jaw  of  the  existing  manatee  with 
which  it  is  compared  this  dimension  is  195  mm.  The  length  of  the 
symphysis  is  relatively  the  same  as  in  the  manatee.  Its  greatest 
height  is  68  mm.;  in  the  manatee,  83  mm.  In  the  latter  animal  the 
upper  half  of  the  hinder  face  of  the  symphysis  forms  a concavity; 
this  does  not  exist  in  the  fossil  jaw.  The  surface  which  in  life  was 
occupied  by  the  horny  plate  is  relatively  much  shorter  than  in  the 
manatee,  being  only  60  mm.  long;  in  the  manatee,  80  mm.  In  the 
manatee  the  inner  face  of  the  horizontal  ramus  is  flat  or  even  con- 
cave; this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  case  in  the  fossil  jaw. 
The  height  of  the  jaw  was  evidently  less  than  in  the  existing  manatee, 
being  apparently  only  48  mm.  at  the  middle  of  the  length;  whereas 
in  the  only  slightly  larger  manatee  jaw  the  height  is  60  mm.  The 
inferior  dental  canal  is  considerably  larger  than  in  the  manatee,  its 
diameter  being  17  mm.  Moreover,  its  outer  face  is  open  backward 
to  about  the  position  of  the  third  or  fourth  tooth. 

Judging  from  what  remains  of  the  sockets  of  the  teeth  the  latter 
had  a length  somewhat  greater  than  in  the  existing  manatee.  Three 
of  these  sockets  occupy  a line  45  mm.  long;  in  the  manatee  used  for 
comparison,  41  mm.  The  lower  teeth  appear  to  have  been  wider 
than  those  of  the  manatee,  but  of  this  one  can  not  be  certain. 

Leidy  described  an  upper  tooth  of  a manatee  which  bears  the 
name  Trichechus  antiquus,  and  which  was  found  at  Charleston, 
South  Carolina.  The  fore  and  aft  diameter  of  the  tooth  was  about 
20  mm.;  that  of  the  existing  manatee  is  about  12.5  mm.  T.  aiv- 
tiquus  was  evidently  a much  larger  animal.  Its  lower  teeth  must 
have  had  a length  of  about  24  mm.  Evidently  the  jaw  supposed  to 
have  been  found  at  Williston  belonged  to  a considerably  smaller 
individual,  perhaps  to  a smaller  species,  than  the  one  which  fur- 
nished Leidy’ s type.  In  the  various  species  belonging  to  the  genus 
Trichechus  there  is  a continuous  succession  of  teeth  which  are  pro- 
duced at  the  rear  of  the  jaw  and  which  move  forward.  These  in- 
crease in  both  length  and  width  as  the  animal  grows.  Hence  the 
tooth  described  by  Leidy  may  have  belonged  to  a very  large  speci- 
men of  the  same  species  as  that  to  which  the  jaw  belonged  which  is 
above  described.  For  that  reason  the  jaw  is  referred  provisionally 
to  Trichechus  antiquus;  but  it  may,  with  equal  probability,  have  be- 
longed to  an  undescribed  species. 

ATRACTOSTEUS  LAPIDOSUS,  new  species. 

Plate  26,  fig.  4;  plate  28,  fig.  8. 

In  the  United  States  National  Museum  are  a right  opercular  bone 
and  some  scales  of  a fresh-water  gar  which  are  labeled  as  having 
been  found  by  L.  C.  Johnson,  in  1885,  in  the  “Mixon  bone  bed,”  in 


no.  2291.  MAMMALIAN  AND  FISH  REMAINS  FROM  FLORIDA— HA Y.  Ill 


Levy  County,  Florida.  This  place  is  near  the  present  town  of 
Williston.  These  gar  remains  are  doubtless  those  mentioned  by 
Leidy  in  1896.1  An  examination  of  these  shows  that  they  belonged 
to  a fish  closely  related  to  that  known  as  alligator  gar,  usually  called 
Lepisosteus  tristoeclius.  However,  this  gar  appears  to  the  writer  to 
be  generically  distinct  from  the  long-snouted  gar  and  hence  to  be 
called  Atractosteus  Rafinesque.  The  fossil  materials  from  Williston 
are  referred  to  this  genus  and  may  be  known  as  Atractosteus  lapi- 
dosus.  The  opercular  bone  is  made  the  special  type  of  this  species. 
It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  scales  belonged  to  the  same  in- 
dividual fish.  In  case  the  opercular  bone  had  the  same  length, 
proportioned  to  the  remainder  of  the  body,  as  in  a specimen  of  A 
tristoechus  the  total  length  of  the  fish  was  close  to  27  inches. 

The  opercular  is  represented  of  the  natural  size  by  figure  4 of  plate 
26.  The  height  near  the  front  border  is  26.5  mm. ; the  length  is  24  mm. 
The  corresponding  dimensions  of  this  bone  in  a specimen  of  the 
existing  alligator  gar  are  54  mm.  and  54  mm.  This  bone  also  is 
shown,  reduced  to  the  same  size  for  comparison  (pi.  26,  fig.  5).  It 
belonged  to  the  left  side  of  the  head.  The  fossil  bone  is  entire,  ex- 
cept that  a small  fragment  is  missing,  the  loss  of  which  has  pro- 
duced the  notch  in  the  lower  border.  It  will  be  seen  that  there  are 
some  differences  in  the  shape  of  the  two  bones.  The  greatest  differ- 
ence is  found,  however,  in  the  character  of  the  sculpture.  That  of 
the  fossil  differs  in  consisting  of  more  regular,  more  continuous,  and 
more  sharply  defined  ridges  descending  from  the  upper  angle  of  the 
bone.  The  ridges  of  the  existing  fish  consist  of  a sort  of  network 
of  low  ridges,  especially  on  the  front  half  of  the  bone.  Also  the 
ridges  of  the  front  half  are  directed  downward  or  downward  and 
backward,  while  in  the  fossil  they  turn  somewhat  forward  in  their 
descent.  In  the  existing  fish  the  ridges  of  the  front  half  are  more 
widely  separated  than  those  in  the  hinder  part;  in  the  fossil  they 
are  narrower  and  more  closely  packed. 

Ten  of  the  scales  are  here  represented  of  the  size  of  nature  (pi.  28, 
fig.  8).  It  will  be  seen  that  some  of  them  have  the  upper  hinder 
border  toothed,  while  others  have  this  border  smooth.  In  these 
respects  they  resemble  the  scales  of  the  existing  alligator  gar  (pi. 
28,  fig.  9)  except  that  there  appear  to  be  fewer  of  the  teeth.  Both 
Lepisosteus  osseous  and  L.  platystomus  have  the  borders  of  all  the 
scales  smooth;  at  least  the  writer  has  not  found  toothed  scales  in 
either  of  these  species. 


1 Trans.  Wagner  Free  Inst.Sci.,  vol.  4,  page  x. 


112 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  MUSEUM. 


vol.  56. 


EXPLANATION  OF  PLATES. 

Plate  26 . 

Fig.  1.  Elephas  imperator.  Hindermost  left  lower  molar.  X f. 

2.  3.  Trichechus  antiquus?  Lower  jaw.  X i 

2.  View  of  left  side. 

3.  View  from  above. 

4.  Atractosteus  lapidosus.  Right  opercular  bone;  outer  surface.  X 1. 

5.  Atractosteus  tristoechus.  Left  opercular  bone;  outer  surface.  Reduced. 

Plate  27. 

Figs.  1.  2.  Thinobadistes  segnis.  Left  astragalus.  X f . 

1.  View  of  upper  face. 

2.  View  of  lower  face. 

3.4 . Gnathopsis  oweni.  Left  astragalus.  X 1 

3.  View  of  upper  face. 

4.  View  of  lower  face. 

a,  external;  6,  internal,  portion  of  tibial  articular  surface;  c,  articular 
surface  for  navicular;  d,  articular  surface  for  cuboid;  e,  anterior; 
/,  posterior  surface  for  calcaneum;  g,  articular  surface  for  fibula. 

Plate  28. 

Figs.  1-3.  Trucifelis  floridanus.  Teeth.  X 1. 

1.  Left  upper  carnassial.  Inner  view. 

2.  Same  tooth.  Outer  view. 

3.  Fragment  of  upper  canine. 

4.  Dinobastis  serus.  Right  canine.  X 1. 

5-7.  Felis  veronis.  Left  upper  carnassial.  X 1. 

5.  Outer  view. 

6.  Inner  view. 

7.  View  of  cutting  border. 

8.  Atractosteus  lapidosus.  Scales.  X 1. 

9.  Atractosteus  tristoechus.  Scales.  X 1- 


Mammalian  and  Fish  Remains  from  Florida 


u.  s.  national  museum 


PROCEEDINGS,  VOL.  56  PL.  26 


For  explanation  of  plate  see  page  112 


U.  S.  NATIONAL  MUSEUM 


Mammalian  Remains  from  Florida 

For  explanation  of  plate  see  page  1 12 


PROCEEDINGS,  VOL.  56  PL.  27 


u.  S.  NATIONAL  MUSEUM 


PROCEEDINGS.  VOL.  56  PL.  28 


Mammalian  and  Fish  Remains  from  Florida 


For  explanation  of  plate  see  page  1 12 


53;  V 


% 


V 


N 


h . 


S 


